Behind Nearly Every Google Complaint? A Lobbyist And A Flailing Competitor

from the funny-how-the-system-works dept

Plenty of folks have been sending in links to Wired's article on The Plot to Kill Google, which basically shows how both Microsoft and AT&T -- two companies scared to death by Google, are now working hard not to build better products to beat Google in the marketplace -- but on hiring better lobbyists and marketers to try to destroy public perception of Google. Of course, Google has been doing a bit of the same thing in reverse... pointing out that every bit of critical information just so happens to come from companies or individuals working for (or at least funded by) AT&T or Microsoft. The whole thing has turned into a huge public relations nightmare, with little focus on providing actual value. This is unfortunate. It may be naive in this day and age, but wouldn't it be nice if companies actually focused on creating value, rather than crafting PR schemes directed at politicians and bureaucrats to tear down their competitors?

Inevitable?

SOP for MSFT

This is standard business practice for Microsoft, and now AT&T. It's easier, and less expensive, to try to destroy your competition by being underhanded and sleazy, than it is to try to compete on the merits of your product. And it's worked well for Microsoft, so why not AT&T? It's just not clear to me exactly where AT&T and Google compete. I sure can't remember using an AT&T search engine. Did Google reduce the value of the Yellow Pages? Maybe that's because the (official) online Yellow Pages was a piece of junk -- the damned book was easier to use.

Re: SOP for MSFT

AT&T is against Google's opinions on what to do with the leftover spectrum and their stance on net-neutrality. If Google had their way, AT&T would be out a crap ton of free spectrum and they would have to allow people access to the internet without filtering it.

A bit disingenuous

Lobbying is something all companies do, especially because as you get bigger, more people see a target painted on your back (and your front, and your head, and every appendage). It's also a little bit disingenuous to say that Google's competitors aren't working to bring better products to market--they are. Just because you lobby doesn't mean you don't do other stuff as well.

You would think Microsoft and AT&T would know better. Why because they were attacked for the same reason. Instead of having a defending themselves, they use the same BS tactics used against them on their competition.

This is exactly what happened to Microsoft, so google can only play the victim so much.

Not the full story

Not a big fan of either Microsoft or AT&T ... but ... seems like such a long article on Google might mention them selling out Chinese dissidents (especially when talking about privacy concerns and google).

From the face of the article, it looks like the advertisers have valid monopoly concerns... not sure why those are less valid just because lobbyists were involved... especially since lobbyists are involved in both sides of almost any action in Washington. These concerns only become more valid as more content comes through the internet.

I dont have much on AT&T but MS stopped making good products a long time. Again, just look back how different the real Bill Gates is to the corporate Bill Gates. MS has not done anything note worthy in the positive side of tech in over 10 years, only failures but when you sit on that much cash, you can afford to do that.

Although I agree that lobbying instead of competing is weird, wrong and bad, the whole article is nonsense. First, the Yahoo-Google deal will not had raised prices for advertising. Second, ISP's are not in favor of censoring content (I think they don't really care either way, but net neutrality is less work). Being that the writer is really making that stuff up, I wouldn't be surprised if he was making the MS stuff up too. I mean, it totally makes sense for Microsoft to lobby against Google... but I don't see any proof of that happening in the article.

There are two ways to look good. The best way is to actually be good. The worst way is to knock everyone else down around you so you look good in comparison. Unfortunately these days; far to many businesses (and politicians) choose the worst way.

Google, and the others, are responsible for how much business comes your way. However none of them allow you to verify the ranking of the products you sell. This is very lame. You can't tell if some competitor is ahead or behind you. I hope Google and the other search engines make such a scene some fair-play rules are put in place to govern this wild-west like game. I don't want to know, but I fully expect it to be the truth, those who pay to play get their rankings moved up across the boards. It may not be obvious but come on... It should be obvious that this is the case given a little common sense and perspective. Let's hope we get some fair use laws put in soon.

behind every complaint

This is my first time to visit your blog and I actually like it. Keep it up! You can also drop by my site if you have time. It's about furnished apartment in Jacksonville Florida. Have fun reading articles about corporate housing.